Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,535,826   Online: 786
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,545
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I hope you are kidding, I got tired of filing copyright complaints and lawsuits not to mention having scumbags go after my clients for cheaper once they figured out who I shot for so I pulled all my work off the web. I only post here because you have to be a paid subscriber to view it.

    The fastest way to devalue your work is to post it on the web, period....it *is* getting that bad.


    Morning tea a while ago with a web designer who specialises in the 'bells and whistles' stuff for photographers using Flash. He is busy.
    All very interesting, arty, creative and visually appealing (and costly!). So I mentioned the big problem is how web surfers like to "click-off" images, for whatever reason (good and bad), and to my amazement, considering his skill, he said, "that can't happen with Flash". Ahh—. I looked at him. He looked back. I posed the question: "Have you heard of Print Screen?" And that 'nasty piece of software', "Snipping Tool". There was a long pause and he shrugged. I told him, as a webmeister of a very basic calibre, I found it very easy to print screen AND snip anything I wanted, including photos, photos in transition, text, Flash animations...the works. Another long pause... "So, are you going to have a website built?", seemingly ignoring what can so easily be done to steal images from a Flash site. I also mentioned CopySentry which allowed in depth electronic watermarking, but goodness knows how effective that is. Is anything at all effective?

    For me, No. No website. I have "been there, done that" (around 2000-2001) and suffered theft and plagiarism like legions of others. Flickr is perhaps the worst place of all to post photos, absolutely no protection whatsoever: click off, strip out EXIF, maybe Photochop here and there and behold, your photo is now his/hers. The wider situation with copyrighted work is that every second, every minute, every hour, thousands upon thousands of images are being stolen and "rebirthed", and stuff that thing called copyright. It is lawless. We can see what is going on, to a degree, using TinEye, and go after them (often at crippling cost). In the end, the web has got us all by the short and curlies and if we are serious about affording protection to our work, don't post it on the web! A simple mantra that works well for me.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  2. #22
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,177
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I don’t know if this is true, but a colleague told me a couple of days ago that now any photograph you put on a social network site, or sites like Instagram. You then no longer own the copyright, as these may then be used by others for commercial gain, or whatever without your say so. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
    I think what your friend was referring to was specifically Instagram, in the malarky last year, I posted about it on CR here.

    In short, by uploading to instagram, you retain copyright. But you grant them an unlimited license to do what the hell they want with it, sell it, distribute it, whatever, which is actually worse, because any problems arising from their use of the image are actually the problem of the copyright-holder, ie you.
    Imagine you take a photo on a street, and there's random strangers in it. You post it to instagram. Instagram then take the image without telling you, and sell it to some advertising firm, who use it on billboards across the country. The people in this photo take offence, and sue the advertising company, who say "we bought it from instagram", so they sue instagram, who say "we just have a license, the copyright holder is this guy, go sue him", and you're at the end of the chain.
    Problem is, there's no way to prevent any of that. You won't even know instagram have sold it until you see it on a billboard, or worse yet, when the lawyers come knocking. Only way around it is to not use instagram. Or most places, facebook do it too. I haven't posted an image to facebook in years, not even a link to my smugmug.

    Anyway, after that story broke, there was a massive backlash, from the few people who bother readings terms and conditions and spreading the word. Instagram then promised to 'back down' and 'remove the wrong wording'. They did change something, but the gist was still the same last time i read it. In short, don't use it. Then I got bored of trying to 'help' my friends not get legally boned, using it makes them happy and if they get bitten in the ass at least I've tried to warn them.

    As for 'proper' photo-hosting sites like flickr, smugmug, zenfolio, their terms and conditions are a lot more on your side, but that wont stop theft. And even if someone does steal your stuff, and you're legally in the right, it's a hassle to chase people down and get it back, especially in countries with dodgy (or missing) legal systems. If you're afraid, just don't post them on the net, don't get the exposure, and don't sell as much.

    (and then there's the counterpoint to all that, summed up nicely here with the quote "it seems like many amateur [photographers] spend more time putting elaborate watermarks on their images than they do making images worth stealing").
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    Having negatives stored away affords great peace of mind. They can only steal pixels. Post online all you like.
    I hope you are kidding,
    I think the viewpoint is driven by how you pay for the groceries.

    I'm a hobbyist, so anyone copying my photos of the web costs me nothing (aside from maybe being annoyed). If this is part/all of your income, it is a huge deal.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,591
    Copyright is one thing, defending a copyright another. Unless you've got a significant track record can prove you've lost tons of income due to a specific instance of pirating, no lawyer is going to be interested in defending you. Anything posted on the web can be nominally copied, even
    if they just rephotograph the screen. A few jerks have even taken cellphone shots of photographic prints for sale at art fairs and copied those
    for their own walls. So what. All they got was a ball of fuzz. Keep your jpeg content modest in the first place and that's all they will be able
    to steal. And if you just happen to get the world's fist shot of Elvis and Bigfoot both landing in the same UFO, don't go posting it on the web!
    Sell it to some big news network first!

  5. #25
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,591
    Images
    122
    The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you

    Myth – the provisions remove the automatic right to copyright for owners of photos posted online
    Fact - The powers do not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright.

    Myth – anyone can use a photo they have found on the internet as an “orphan” if they cannot find the copyright owner after a search
    Fact – A licence must be obtained to use a work as an “orphan”. This will require the applicant to undertake a diligent search, which will then need to be verified by the independent authorising body which the Government will appoint before a work can be used.

    Myth – works will have their metadata stripped and be licensed en masse as orphans under the Extended Collective Licensing provisions
    Fact – the Orphan Works scheme and Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) are separate and the orphan works scheme is about licensing of individual works.The Government will have no power to impose ECL on a sector, and the safeguards included in the scheme mean that ECL is only likely to be an option where there is strong existing support for collective licensing. Any rights holder who is worried about how their work could be used under an ECL scheme will always retain the ability to opt out.
    It is unlikely that ECL will be an option for photography where there is a strong tradition of direct licensing: there is no collecting society for photographers in the UK, so no application for an ECL is feasible at present.

    Myth – anyone will be able to use my photos for free if they cannot find who owns them?
    Fact – If a work is licensed following the verification of the diligent search, there will be a licence fee payable up-front for its use. The fee will be set at the going rate.

    Myth – anyone can use my photos without my permission
    Fact – Anyone wishing to use a work as an orphan must first undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which is then verified with permission to use the work granted by the Government appointed independent authorising body. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found, if the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued.

    Myth – the Act is the Instagram Act
    Fact – Given the steps that must be taken before an orphan work can be copied, such as the diligent search, verification of the search and payment of a going rate fee, it is unlikely that the scheme will be attractive in circumstances where a substitute photograph is available. The rate payable for an orphan work will not undercut non-orphans.

    Myth – a company can take my work and then sub-license it without my knowledge, approval or any payment
    Fact – The licences to use an orphan work will not allow sub-licensing.

    Myth – the stripping of metadata creates an orphan work
    Fact – the absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme

    Myth – I will have to register my photos to claim copyright
    Fact – Copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection.

    Myth – the UK is doing something radical and unprecedented with the Orphan Works powers
    Fact – Other jurisdictions already allow the use of orphan works. The UK powers are largely based on what happens in Canada – which has been licensing orphan works since 1990.

    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #26
    ajmiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    440
    Images
    2
    An unattributed copy and paste off the internet?
    Be good to actually know where it comes from Steve.
    regards,

    Tony

  7. #27
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,177
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by ajmiller View Post
    An unattributed copy and paste off the internet?
    Be good to actually know where it comes from Steve.
    Don't worry, it's not a photo. You're allowed to just copy-paste text, that's not copyright-protected...
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  8. #28
    paul_c5x4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ye Olde England
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,451
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 –Your photos and you
    Quoted from www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-orphanmyth.pdf as issued by the Intellectual Property Office

  9. #29
    ajmiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    440
    Images
    2
    Thanks for the link Paul, useful info.
    regards,

    Tony

  10. #30
    ajmiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    440
    Images
    2


    ok - I'm still interested in the source - of which a link has been upped.

    cheers


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
    Don't worry, it's not a photo. You're allowed to just copy-paste text, that's not copyright-protected...
    regards,

    Tony

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin